Is there any chance of getting a scan of that document?
Apologies, forgot the link: https://www.seair.co.in/indian-trader/s-c-moitra-air-technical-training-i.aspx
Shipped from Calcutta on May 24th, 2003 it would appear (but you never know with Indian bureaucracy!), along with an engine, an Australian built Chipmunk (lsited as s/n 53, VT-CFX, but don’t know where that went) and a cache of DH spare parts.
I’d imagine the confusion with A17-370 versus A17-307 could stem from this import documents? A17-370 is correct indeed, it would seem.
Well, there is this 2003 freight sheet linking export A17-307 to VT-CUO, by SC Moitra Technical Training.
Brings back some memories 🙂
Video of it at Leuchars here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wajOrm8UpmY
One of their F-27s (C-10) is now on display at the Soesterberg museum.
… savaged it terminally.
Moggy
You sure? I seem to recall it going to Lithuania for major repairs, then back to the UK?
The remains of TF-VIB consist of a poor condition wing and tail section plus lots of smaller parts, and are in storage at Reykjavik awaiting a possible restoration.
Is that `Big Nig` the Havoc that was supposed to be coming to the RAF Museum…………..Martin
No. A-20H N99385.
I was watching an old favourite ‘Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade’ yesterday evening and I enjoyed the old Biplane and ‘Messerschmitt’ chase sequence and the events subsequent involving several ‘seagulls’ creating a rather bent ‘Messerschmitt’
Of course The Biplane in which The Joneses make their attempted getaway, from a zeppelin attached trapeze was a converted Stampe with a rear gunners position.
I’m certain I’ve seen this stampe someplace before although I can’t recall where.
I wondered if anyone knew the reg of this plane or had any pictures of the aircraft in it’s various guises, if it was the same plane in British markings as I’d seen before.With regards to the ‘Messerschmitts’ AKA Pilatus Trainers in spurious German markings, wasn’t there a fuselage of one at Booker, is it still there? How is it looking?
The stampe was c/n 45, G-BHFG.
Indeed. Code DQ-AX. Taken at El Daba (Egypt) in 1942, according to the AWM-archive which has a similar picture.
Worst one I found was on a fairly plywood large gusset plate ‘Failed inspection, replace before recovering wing’ with ‘Don’t worry about it’ written beneath it in a different handwriting just before the wing was recovered in fabric. The plate, incidently, was no longer glued to the ribs it needed to hold together…
Another fun one was ‘This fuselage was broken before’ handwritten on a bulkhead only accessible when the fuselage was broken again 20 years later…
Didn’t Camlobe post recently that he was considering putting it up for sale ?
I think this is the nose section that turned up today in Harderwijk (the Netherlands)…
Or is that, those with professional insights get back on topic, and the rest of us just keep quiet?
Your words, certainly not mine, Sideslip.
… an individual does not have to be involved in the industry to have an opinion on airshow/flying matters.
Indeed, from the dictionary:
…
opinion (Noun)
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment.
…
This forum seems to suffer too much from opinion of the first and second sort. And too little of the third.
Can we now get back on topic?
Am I correct in thinking that the Hawkridge Daglings were, like Laurence’s Swiss Zögling, built post-war and, if so, am I equally correct in assuming that none of the original pre-war R.F.Dagnall built Daglings survive today. Am I also correct in thinking that the cockpit nacelle was a post-war development of the Zögling/Dagling/T.3 Primary and that the pre-war versions were unenclosed like the later SG-38?
The Swiss Zögling was built in 1944, hardly post-war! I am sure G-ASEA will be able to confirm that the two Hawkridge-built Daglings are the only ones still in existance…
Re enclosed fuselages on primary gliders on general: they were about long before WW2. Anything to reduce the ridiculous drag of the open A-frame, and for some creature comforts… If you have ever flown the open exposed primary gliders (which includes any of the A-framed gliders from circa 1925 all the way up to the Grasshopper from the 1950s) you’ll see that a boat, cocoon or egg (as they were variously called) would make serious sense. Most of these were not designed, but just built and fitted. Gliding wasn’t that regulated as it is now!
As an aside: the SG-38 was not later than the pre-war versions. It is a pre-war version. The name says it all: Schulgleiter-38 -> schoolglider 1938. Perhaps you are confused with Slingsby’s T38 which was a distinct post-war design, but borrowed heavily from the SG38 for fuselage design (basically a copy) and mating that with a batch of surplus Slingsby T.7 wings, stabilizer and rudder. The SG38 is a beautiful balanced glider to fly, and even performs relatively well. The bitsa T38 is a pig to get to go anywhere. Except down. That it does really well.
Very good to hear: hardly any Zöglings still about, let alone flying ones. The old primary gliders are somewhat of a forgotten corner of aviation history. Good to see one coming back to life again.